Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The worst fault of the text though, is that it is eerily similar to Mormon story. Man sees angel in desert, check. Declares all Jews and Christians to be wrong about God, check. Repeats and contradicts himself alot, check. Also see my thoughts on "revelations" above.
Got to love those anti-Mormon/anti-Muslim websites. They're so accurate, reliable and objective.
All I'm getting is yout own particular views and acepting or rejecting the others as it suits ye.
I'm not admirer of the Quran, but you were hardly fair to it here. On the other hand, you accepted some of the others as being reliable without question. Never mind the Real contradictions.
I wonder how many of these he's actually read. People are such authorities on books they've never even opened, much less read cover-to-cover.
It's beyond me how people could ever consider Islam a 'religion of peace'.
Mohammad was a war monger who kept sex slaves, drank camel <bleep> & consummated his marriage when his wife was 9yo.
Muslims are commanded to infiltrate, destroy & dominate other cultures.
The Koran says that the rules only apply to fellow Muslims. Murdering, raping & lying to non-believers is permitted.
Why Christian leaders pander to this evil <religion> defies comprehension.
I believe that Islam is a religion of peace for 99% of its members. They are practicing it as it was intended to be practiced, not as a small minority has interpreted it. How many Muslims do you actually know personally -- on a first-name basis, and that you have interacted with socially? I can think of eight or ten that I can say are my personal friends, and they are as peace-loving and kind as any Christians I know.
Last edited by mensaguy; 12-15-2017 at 07:16 PM..
Reason: Quoted post edited
I wonder how many of these he's actually read. People are such authorities on books they've never even opened, much less read cover-to-cover.
Well, that's why I was glad to participate in thoise discussions with Khalif and Truth -teller. They had me read more of the Quran than I had (Just dipped into it - I have read the Book of Mormon - all of it) and though I did have a basic disbelief in the Abrahamic god, I was glad to tackle some of the apologetics. That older discussion of 'write another like it' was valuable, too, as it dealt with the knotty problem of the claim of a Quran dictated to an illiterate prophet. Put at least a theory of the possible origin of a man -made Quran into place. Which I hadn't had before.
LI is good people. So is Khalif, I'm sure. I'd probably enjoy Truth -teller's company, too. People are generally ok. I just happen not to be very impressed with their religion. I don't suppose they are impressed with my atheism, either
This thread has become quite interesting, because apart from saying that no writings are divinely inspired and are the devisings of men (and women) we have of course got onto whether the Bible is divinely inspired or not.
We seem to have had (Or will have) two main critiques
That the God in the Bible lies, deludes or deceives
or the Bible is full of untruths and can't be trusted.
So far Faptist Bundiy has merely posted a rolleyes icon, and could hardly have done better if he'd have posted "I don't have a single credible counter- argument, but I still think I'm right".
And there's the usual riffling through the pages of the gospels on order to find clues to what God's intentions were. But that is a waste of time until the serious Q of whether the Bible deserves any credibility at all is answered. And so far, the evidence against it being reliable is mounting up.
The evidence strongly suggests that it is a pack of lies from cover to cover - legends, political polemic, and a story of a failed messiah comprehensively reinvented to strip the Jews of the Abrahamic promise and hand it to the Gentiles.
The a priori has changed. The Bible existed as a fact/claim to be accepted or not. The burden of proof fell on those who doubted it to prove their doubts valid.
That has pretty much been done, from the nonsense of Eden and the Flood, to the rejection as historically reliable the accounts of the Exodus or God smiting the Assyrians, the prophecies of Babylon and Tyre being demonstrably wrong, Daniel being written in the 2nd c BC not the 6th, and damn near everything in the gospels from the nativity to the Resurrection being shown up as invented fantasy, the burden of proof has now been discharged.
The a prori assumption is now that the Bible is rubbish, cover to cover, and the buirden of proof is now on the believer to get it back some credibility. I don't care if some simply say they believe it on Faith. That does nothing to validate the Bible.
I don't care if anyone accuses me of Bias, or fear of being judged or not wanting Jesus to be real. I know that is trash as I have argued for Jesus' reality and even some of his deeds against some who want him to be totally invented. Because I go by the evidence.
I don't care about those who insist of prophecy or Bible factuality or divine inspiration. They are demonstrably the ones who have to make a credible case - not just claim it a priori. Their faith -claims can be dismissed out of hand. They really can. They now have to do the work, and 'well perhaps' or re-rwiting the Bible to make it work will not wash. That is no more than somewhere between "Metaphorically true" (which is another way of saying "not true at all") or excuse it as a fantasized or inaccurate record of actual history. Which is indeed what quite a bit of it is but that is just another way of saying 'Fantasy with historical unreliability". Which is what I'm saying the Bible is - cover to cover.
Andf that is where the burden of proof lies - with the Bible -believers. It doesn't matter to point to how old the Book is or how many translations there have been or how many qualified scholars have believed it or how many consider it true. None of that matters a damn'. It is demonstrably false, and only fingers in the ears denial can avoid accepting that. Unless some credible refutation can be made.
So arguing about what the message of the Bible is or whether it's literally true or just Inspired is futile. Thee whole thing is wrong and cannot be relied on for history, prophecy or fact.
Time - high time - I think, for us to stop having to answer the burden of proof and to require these BIble experts and scholars and savants to start waking up to fact that this Book is not reliable as fact, history or science, never mind prophecy, morality or divine inspiration.
It’s a technique where you get the other party involved in doing the research to prove you wrong, thereby getting you to read the holy book, by which they believe the act of reading it will turn you into a believer...
You might want to re-read Mathew 15. It's clear from the story that Jesus was referring to his fellow Jews. But hey, you can twist it to mean whatever you want, it's a free world I guess.
You mean this:
YLT
Mat 15:24 and he answering said, 'I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.'
NIV
Matthew 15:24 24He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."
Mat 15:24 and he answering said, 'I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.'
NIV
Matthew 15:24 24He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."
Where does it say Jews?...
I have a Theory about that ....anybody want to hear it? , and a bit of
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
It’s a technique where you get the other party involved in doing the research to prove you wrong, thereby getting you to read the holy book, by which they believe the act of reading it will turn you into a believer...
Well, there's the two ways that rhetorical ploy can be employed. One is the certificate -waving ploy , which covers 'I will only discuss this with you if you have a Phd in the subject' (1) .
The other ploy is the cunning gimmick of 'The evidence is right there - go and research'. Covering also a list of books or string of video addies to get buried in.
This is a beautiful swindle as it means that (if it works) you can bury the opponent under a heap of work (2) which is why, very early on I have to make a Rule - if you have a point to make - make it. Don't expect me to go and research oiut your evidence for you.
It has been an invaluable way of blocking that rhetorical swindle.
(1) And you wouldn't believe the number on the Other Side who, when asked, swore that they were indeed certificated experts in the subject - and then showed that they had not the first idea about it.
(2) not unlike the filiburering technique of a poster or two who produced a Massive diatribe, and when Shirina responded to every point, the 'I sure rattled your bars' ploy was used. Though of course Shirina don't mince words, and that can give the opening for the 'I annoyed you. so you must know I'm right'. Ploy.
Got to love those anti-Mormon/anti-Muslim websites. They're so accurate, reliable and objective.
I once wrote a satirical piece (for the amusement of a few people who actually read my stuff at the time) about the similarities between Mormons and Muslims. Post-Jesus prophet, clothing restrictions, alcohol restriction, polygamy...
Then I went on to say how we should round up all the Muslims and send them to Utah and then wait for the moment when a Muslim and a Mormon fall in love, because you know that would happen sooner or later.
I once wrote a satirical piece (for the amusement of a few people who actually read my stuff at the time) about the similarities between Mormons and Muslims. Post-Jesus prophet, clothing restrictions, alcohol restriction, polygamy...
Then I went on to say how we should round up all the Muslims and send them to Utah and then wait for the moment when a Muslim and a Mormon fall in love, because you know that would happen sooner or later.
I believe that Islam is a religion of peace for 99% of its members. They are practicing it as it was intended to be practiced, not as a small minority has interpreted it. How many Muslims do you actually know personally -- on a first-name basis, and that you have interacted with socially? I can think of eight or ten that I can say are my personal friends, and they are as peace-loving and kind as any Christians I know.
I work for a Muslim family of engineers, Pakistanis, a man, his wife, and now their son, and they are some of the nicest people I have ever met. Their beliefs permeate the way they do business, believing in fairness in their dealings and that if something does not work out, it was not meant to work out. They are also very upbeat people with a good sense of humor. I have to attend business-meeting lunches and dinners with them sometimes, and when they get going back and forth with one another, I just can't stop laughing. This family is just so funny. The business events are usually boring, so they liven things up.
And they are perfectly fine with me drinking wine or beer at these events, even though they won't. It also works out well for me since I don't eat meat and they only eat halal meat, the four of us get the vegetarian or fish option.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People are such authorities on books they've never even opened, much less read cover-to-cover.
